2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-12-2008 

# Gove rnme nt of the V

i v . H ewitt Pe reir a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1719

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gove rnme nt of the V

i v . H ewitt P e r eir a" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 113. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/113NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1719

_____________ G O V E R N M E N T O F T H E V IR G IN IS L A N D S , v. HE WI T T P E RE I RA , A p p e llan t.

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands - A ppel l at e D i vi s i on ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 035- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udges : R aym ond L . Fi nch and Curt i s V . G om ez Super i orC our tJ udge: A udr eyL . T hom as

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber9, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , J O R D A N a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ,

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber12, 2008)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________2

J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . H ew itt Pe reira ap p ea ls th e d ec isi o n o f th e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands aff i r m i ng hi s convi ct i on foras s aul ti n the fi r s tdegr ee a nd pos s es s i on o f a d an g ero u s w ea p o n d u ri n g the c o m m issi o n o f a crim e o f v iolen ce . O n ap p ea l, P ere ir a cont es t s the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence agai ns thi m , ar gues thatthe governm entdi d not i ni t i at e the cr i m i nal char ges agai ns thi m unt i l aft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run, and as s ert s thatthe governm ent ’ s del ayi n fi l i ng the cha r gi ng i nform at i on vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . B eca us e w e fi nd thatther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o convi ctPer ei r a, t hat the i nform at i on char gi ng hi m w as fi l ed w i thi n the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and thatthe g o v e rn me n t ’ s d e l a yi n f i l i n g th e i n f

o r ma t i o n d i d n o tv i o l a t e h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s , we w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound O n A ugus t13, 1999, G r anvi l l e Fr eeman w as s hotm ul t i pl e t i m es bytw o arm ed as s ai l ant s . T hr ee y ear s l at ert o t he day , the G overnm entof the V i r gi n I s l ands fi l ed an i nfo rm at i on based o n the shoo t i ng , chargi ng H ew i t tP erei ra w i th assaul ti n the fi rs t degr ee, tw o count s of pos s es s i on of a de adl yw eapon dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence , and tw o count s of unauthor i zed pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . T he i nform at i on w as acc om pani ed byan af

fi davi tpr epar ed byD et ect i ve R i char d M atthew s buts i gned by S e rg e a n t S te p h e n B ro w n .3

A ttr i al i n t he Super i orC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands , Fr eeman t es t i fi ed thathe and h is th en g ir lfri en d , n o w w ife, R ay tr ici a B erm u d ez F ree m an (“B erm u d ez ”) w ere appr oache d fr om behi nd byPer ei r a and a n acc om pl i ce na m ed A s w ad M oe. M oe’ s fac e w as ful l yvi s i bl e butPer ei r a’ s w as obs cur ed bya ny l on s t ocki ng pul l ed overi t . B oth m en h ad h an d g u n s. M o e sh o t Fre em an tw ice in the b ac k an d tw ice in the leg, w h il e P ere ir a h eld h is gu n to B erm u d ez ’s he ad . T h en P ere ir a sh o t Fre em an tw ice in the side b ef o re f le e in g w ith M o e . Fr eeman t es t i fi ed that , des pi t e the s t ocki ng m as k, he coul d i dent i fyPer ei r a as t he sec o n d assa il an t. H e e x p lai n ed that h e h ad k n o w n P ere ir a sin ce sev en th g rad e, w as v ery f a m ili a r w ith h im b e c a u se th e yw e re lo n g -tim e e n e m ies , an d re c o g n ize d h im f ro m h is bodytype and the br ai ds i n hi s hai r . I n addi t i on, Fr eeman i ndi cat ed thathe had s een P e re ir a a n d M o e to g e th e r i n a c a r s h o rt ly b e f o re th e s h o o tin g . B e rm u d e z a lso to o k th e sta n d . S h e id e n tifie d M o e a s o n e o f th e sh o o ter s b u t co u ld noti dent i fythe s econd s hoot erbeca us e hi s fac e w as cover ed bythe s t ocki ng m as k. She di d t es t i fy , how ever , thatthe s econd s hoot erw as the s ame hei ghtand had the s ame bui l d, s k in c o lo r, a n d c o m p le x io n a s P e re ir a . A tthe conc l us i on of the tr i al , a j uryconvi ct ed Per ei r a of one countof as s aul ti n t he fi r s tdegr ee i n vi ol at i on of 14 V . I . C . §§ 295( 1) and 11, and one c ountof pos s es s i on of a d a n g e r o u s we a p o n d u r i n g a c r i me o f v i o l e n c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 4 V. I . C. § 2 2 5 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) . HeA tthe t i m e of the appe al , the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on had appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on over 1 the S up eri or C ou rtj ud gm ent purs uan tt o 4 8 U . S . C . § 1 61 3a(a) . If a Su peri or C ou rtcase su c h a s th is w e re a p p e a led to d a y , itw o u ld p ro c e e d to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e V irg in Is la n d s f o r a p p e lla te re v ie w . 4 V .I.C . § 3 2 . 4 w as se n tenc ed to ten y ea rs i m p ri so n m en t on the a ssau ltch arg e a n d three y ea rs im p ri s o n m e n t o n th e p o s s e s s io n c h a rg e , w ith th e s e n te n c e s to b e s e rv e d c o n s e c u tiv e ly. P erei ra appealed hi s conv i ct i on t o the D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on and r ai s ed thr ee i s s ues . Fi r s t , he ar gued thatther e w as i ns uffi ci ent 1 evi dence t o convi cthi m beca us e nei therFr eeman norB erm udez s aw the s econd as s ai l ant ’ s fac e. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r evi ew ed the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al and concl uded thatthe t es t i m onyof Fr eeman and B erm udez pr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence for a re a s o n a b le ju ro r t o c o n c lu d e th a t P e re ir a w a s th e s e c o n d a s s a ila n t. Second, Per ei r a ar gued that , beca us e the af fi davi ts ubm i t t ed w i th the i nform at i on w as i nval i d, the governm entdi d noti ni t i at e the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs w i thi n the s t atut e of lim itatio n s. P e re ira ra ise d th a t ar g u m e n t f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l, an d th e A p p e llate D i vi s i on thus cons i der ed i tunderthe pl ai n- err ors t andar d. I tdet erm i ned that , under V irg in Isla n d s la w , the g o v e rn m e n t is n o t re q u ire d to f ile a p ro b a b le c a u se a f

f id a v it w ith an i nform at i on and thatPer ei r a had notdemonstr at ed thatthe i nform at i on fi l ed w as o th e rw is e in s u f

f ic ie n t.T h e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t is e x p re ss lym a d e a p p lica b le to 2 th e V ir g in Is la n d s b yth e 1 9 6 8 A m e n d m e n ts to th e R e v is e d O rg a n ic A c t. 4 8 U .S .C . § 1561 ( “The fol l ow i ng pr ovi s i ons of and a m endment s t o the C ons t i tut i on of the U ni t ed S t a t e s a r e h e r e b ye x t e n d e d t o th e Vi r g i n I s l a n d s t o th e e x t e n tth a tth e yh a v e th e s a me for ce a nd eff

ectther e as i n t he U ni t ed St at es ori n anySt at e of the U ni t ed St at es . . . the f irst to n in th a m e n d m e n ts in c lu siv e .. . . ” ); s ee ge ner al l y U ni t ed Stat es v. H

yde , 37 F. 3d 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 5 Fi nal l y , Per ei r a ar gued thatthe governm ent ’ s pr e- acc us at i on del ayvi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on not ed thatPer ei r a had nots how n thathe s uffe r ed 2 a c tu a l p re

ju d ice o r th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t in ten tio n a llyd e layed f ili n g th e in f

o rm a tio n to gai n a t act i cal advant age. T he C our t , ther efor e, r ej ect ed thatar gum ent . H avi ng a d d re s s e d e a c h o f

P e re ir a ’s a rg u m e n ts , th e A p p e lla te D iv is io n a f f ir m e d h is c o n v ic tio n . P ere ir a f il ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l and n o w ch all en g es th e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n ’s d e c is io n to a f

f ir m h is c o n v ic tio n . I I . D i s c us s i on W e det erm i ne w hetherthe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on err ed byconduct i ng an i ndepende nt re v ie w o f

th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . See Se m perv. Sant os , 845 F. 2d 1233, 1235- 36 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( “[I ] ti s onl ythr ough an i ndepende ntr evi ew of the tr i al court ' s fi ndi ngs t hat th e se c o n d a p p e llate c o u rt c a n d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e f irst a p p e llate c o u rt e rre d in its r evi ew . ”) . W e r evi ew the Super i orC our t ’ s deci s i on us i ng the s ame st andar d of r evi ew a p p lie d b yth e A p p e lla te D iv is io n . Tyl erv. A r m s tr ong , 3 6 5 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n otherw or ds , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe Super i orC our t ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons6

a n d re v ie w its f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. G o v e rn m e n t o f V irg in Isla n d

s v . Fa h ie , 419 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n appea l t o t hi s C our t , Per ei r a makes the s ame ar gum ent s he made befor e the A p p ell ate D ivisi o n . F ir st, h e c lai m s tha t th ere w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r a rati o n al j u ry t o fi nd hi m gui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . Second, he mai nt ai ns thatthe cr i m i nal p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s th i m w e r e i n i t i a t e d a f t e rth e s t a tu t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s h a d ru n . A n d f i n a l l y, he assert s that the g ov ernm ent’ s del ayi n fil i ng the inform at i on viol at ed h i s due p rocess ri g h ts . A . Suf

f i ci ency of

the Evi dence Per ei r a ar gues that , beca us e the s econd a s s ai l antw as w ear i ng a s t ocki ng m as k and n eith er w itn ess s aw the s ec o n d assa il an t’ s fa ce , there w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r a ra tio n a l ju ro r t o c o n c lu d e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e w a s th e s e c o n d a s s a ila n t. W e re v ie w s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e u n d e r a h ig h ly d e f e re n tia l s ta n d a rd . See U nited S tates v. H

art , 273 F. 3d 363, 371 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e exa m i ne w hetherthe evi dence s ubm i t t ed attr i al , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the g o v e rn m e n t, w o u ld a llo w a ra tio n a l tr ie r o f f a c t to c o n v ic t th e d e f

e n d a n t. Id . ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Helbl i ng , 209 F. 3d 226, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , cert . deni ed, 531 U . S. 1100, 1 2 1 S .C t. 83 3 , 1 4 8 L .E d .2 d 7 1 5 (2 0 0 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 811 F. 2d 804, 807 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 )) .7

T o r ecap t he evi dence , Fr eeman attr i al t es t i fi ed that , des pi t e the s t ocki ng m as k, he re c o g n ize d P e re ira a s o n e o f h is a ss a ilan ts. H e sta ted th a t h e w a s v e ryf a m ili a r w ith P e re ira , h a v in g b e e n e n e m ies w ith h im sin c e se v e n th g ra d e , an d re c o g n ize d h im f ro m h is bodytype and br ai ds . A s Fr eeman expl ai ned i t , “I m ean, i s l i ke havi ng y ourbes tfr i end, y ou know . Y ou know everythi ng abouty ourbes tfr i end. Sam e w ayabouts om eone y ou know thatdon’ tl i ke y ou i s y ourenemy , y ou know everythi ng aboutthem. Y ou know w hat he l ooks l i ke, how he w al ks , how he t al ks . ” ( J A at192. ) I n addi t i on, Fr eeman s w or e that h e s a w P e re ir a a n d M o e to g e th e r i n a g ra yH o n d a C iv ic th e e v e n in g o f th e s h o o tin g . S p e c if ica lly , h e tes tifie d : “O n th e w a yb a c k , I n o tice d a H o n d a C iv ic, a g ra yH o n d a C iv ic thatA s w ad M oe and H ew i t tPer ei r a orw hoeverel s e w as i n ther e us ed t o come t hr ough H arborV i ew l ooki ng form e. ” ( J A at179. ) B erm udez a l s o t ook the s t and and t es t i fi ed thatthe as s ai l antw ear i ng the s t ocki ng m as k w as the s ame hei ghtand w ei ghtand had the s a m e b u ild , c o m p le x io n , a n d s k in c o lo r a s P e re ir a . V iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t, th is e v id e n c e is s u f f icie n t to a llo w a ra tio n a l tr ie r o f

f a c t to c o n v ic t P e re ir a . B . Stat ute of

L i m i tati on s P e re ira a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e in f o rm a tio n w a s f

iled w ith a n in v a lid a f

f id a v it, it di d nott ake e ffe ctw i thi n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od and s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed. A s the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on not ed, Per ei r a di d notr ai s e thati s s ue atthe tr i al l evel . ForanSee Fed. R . C r i m . P. 7( c) ( 1) ( s t at i ng r equi r ed cont ent s of an i ndi ctm entor 3 inf o rm ati o n ). V i r gi n I s l ands Super i orC our tR ul es 121( a) and 123( a) ( 5) govern the fi l i ng of 4 cri m i nal com plai nts . N ei ther rule r equ i res the g ov ernm ent t o fil e a prob able cause a f f id a v it w ith a c o m p la in t. V .I. S u p e r. C t. R . 1 2 1 (a ) sta tes : ( a) For m of C om pl ai nt . T he compl ai nti s a w r i t t en s t at ementof the e ss e n tial f

a c ts c o n stitu tin g th e o f

f e n se c h a rg e d . It sh a ll b e m a d e u p o n o a th befor e the j udge orthe cl erk of the court , orthe A t t orneyG ener al of the V i r gi n I s l ands ors uch A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al as the A t t orneyG ener al s hal l author i ze i n w r i t i ng, as w el l as anycompl ai ntcl erk i n the off i ce of the A t t orneyG eneral of the V i rgi n Isl and s. V . I. S up er. C t . R . 12 3(a) (5) st at es: ( a) ( 5) Fi l i ng of C om pl ai nt . T he A t t orneyG ener al s hal l pr epar e a c om pl ai nt form t o be compl et ed and f i l ed w i th the C our tpr i ort o the I ni t i al A p p ea ran ce . T h e c o m p lai n t sha ll rec it e the ch arg e, th e a p p li ca b le st atuto ry ci t at i on, and s hal l ot herw i s e compl yw i th the r equi r ement s of Super i or C our tR ul e 121. I ts hal l be s w orn t o pr i ort o comm ence m entof the I ni t i al A p p e a ra n c e H e a ri n g , a n d c o p ie s m a d e a v a ila b le to a ll in te re s te d p a rt ie s . W e not e thatPer ei r a does notcont end thatthe cha r gi ng documenti t s el f w as uns w orn, butr atherthatthe off i cerw ho s i gned the af

fi davi tcoul d notpr oper l yhave s w o rn to th e a f

f id a v it. 8 appel l at e courtt o corr ectan err ornotr ai s ed attr i al , the err orm us tbe pl ai n and mustaff ect s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U

ni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 -3 4 (1 9 9 3 ). Per ei r a’ s ar gum enti s bas ed on a mi s under s t andi ng of the l aw . U ndernei thert he F e d e ra l R u les o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re n o r th e R u les f o r th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f th e V irg in 3 I s l ands , i s the governm entr equi r ed t o s ubm i ta pr obabl e ca us e af fi davi tw i th an i nform at i on. B eca us e the af fi davi tw as notr equi r ed, i t s defe ct s di d notkeep the 49

in f o rm a tio n f

ro m v a lid lyin iti a tin g c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st P e re ira w ith in th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. T h is is n o t to sa yth a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t h a v e to p ro v e p ro b a b le caus e; i ts i m pl yi s notr equi r ed t o do s o atthe fi l i ng of a c har gi ng i nform at i on. T he Super i orC our tdi d notcomm i tpl ai n err orand the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on corr ect l yr ej ect ed P e re ir a ’s s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s a rg u m e n t. C . P r e-A ccus at i on D elay P erei ra al l eges t hat the G ov ernm ent’ s del ayviol at ed h i s due p rocess ri gh t s becau se bythe t i m e the i nform at i on w as fi l ed he c oul d no l ongerr emem berw her e he w as on the n ig h t o f th e s h o o tin g a n d w a s u n a b le to f in d w itn e s s e s to s u p p o rt h is a lib i d e f e n s e . T o pr evai l on a due pr oces s cl ai m bas ed on the governm ent ’ s del ayi n fi l i ng an i nform at i on, a def

endantm us tpr ove both thatthe governm enti nt ent i onal l ydel ay ed fi l i ng c h a rg e s to g a in a ta c tic a l a d v a n ta g e a n d th a t h e w a s a c tu a lly p re ju d ic e d b yth e d e la y . U n itedS ta tes v . G o u v e ia , 4 6 7 U .S . 1 8 0 , 1 9 2 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 22 9 2 , 8 1 L .E d .2 d 1 4 6 (1 9 8 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. M

ar i on , 4 0 4 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 2 5 -2 6 , 9 2 S .C t. 4 5 5 , 3 0 L .E d .2 d 4 6 8 (1 9 7 1 ). Per ei r a has notpr ovi ded anyevi dence t o s ubs t ant i at e hi s al l egat i on thatthe governm ent in ten tio n a llyd e layed f

ili n g th e in f

o rm a tio n to g a in a tac tica l ad v a n tag e . In a n a ttem p t to s at i s fythe s econd pr ong of the t es t , the “a ctual pr ej udi ce” r equi r ement , Per ei r a cl ai m s t hat he s uffe r ed ac tual pr ej udi ce be caus e he doe s notr emem berw her e he w as on the ni ghtof th e s h o o t i n g a n d wa s u n a b l e t o o b t a i n wi tn e s s e s t o s u p p o r ta n a l i b i d e f e n s e . Ho we v e r , we have e xpl ai ned that“cont ent i ons thatthe mem or i es of w i tnes s es [have ] fade d as a r es ul tof10

the del ayfal l [] s hor tof the r equi s i t e s how i ng of ac tual pr ej udi ce. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sebet i ch , 776 F. 2d 412, 430 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( ci t i ng M ar i on , 404 U . S. at325- 26) . H ence , P e re ir a ’s a lle g e d m e m o ry la p s e is in s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a c tu a l p re ju d ic e . A s Per ei r a has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h ei theri nt entorpr ej udi ce, the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on corr ect l ycon cl ud ed thatthe g ov ernm ent’ s del aydid not vi olat e his du e process r i gh t s. I I I . C oncl usi on T h e Ap p e l l a t e Di v i s i o n c o r r e c t l ya n a l y z e d a n d r e j e c t e d P e r e i r a ’ s a r g u me n t s , a n d we w ill a f f ir m its d e c is io n .